conference to Defence Secretary 21, 'warning' Europe generalised the USA and USSR. still rising anti-American feeling in Europe matter nave been clear tor years weapons on the would be occupation of Western Europe. In this sense, 'theatre nuclear whole only The neutron confirmation of this scenario.
agains Soviet class warfare breaks calculation of have inevitable, there constructing such weapons fact, the weapons neutron bomb, weapons or 'THERE SEEMS to be some confusion' said US President Ronald Reagan at his press week 'about whether NATO has a contingency plan to fire a nuclear missile first as a warning in the event of war with the Soviet Union'. How remarkable that the US president is unable to find out what NATO's battle plans are!
The contusion of course is a result O1 contradictory statements on the topic by US Secretary of State Alexander Haig anc Weinberger.
The issue of whether NATO could fire a missile is part and parcel of the debate about whether it is US policy that a 'limited' nuclear war could be fought in without being escalated into a exchange between The contradictory statements indicate that the Us is becoming worried about and anti-nuclear But the facts of the - it is just that Reagan's unfortunate confirmation of them, and Haig's confirmation of Reagan's remarks are untimeiv to say tile least In the first place, it has been NATO policy for at least a decade and probably a lot longer that it might be necessary to use first. Since the 1950s NATO planners have estimated that in the event of a conflict on the 'central front' (ie East-West German border) NATO unable to noid une supposec advance of Soviet tanks for more than a few days. It would then become necessary to begin using 'tactical' battlefield nuclear weapons in order to avoid defeat and the the notion of limited war The debate about 'escalation' in the early 1960s was precisely about this point.
bomb is just One of the major uses of the neutron bomb would be if conventional out. were the NATO planners that limited nuclear war was impossible, and that once nuclear weapons of any kind were used then an all-out exchange was would be no point in Cruise, Pershing lance of and the are all either 'battlefield' short and medium-range precisely war about whether COATS ON fire warning against Soviet city or is hilarious but It has always been part of NATO battle plans to use nuclear weapons first if it were necessary to avoid losing a different now, since the systematisation of 'theatre' warfare plans is that instead of it being assumed that there is a grave danger of this first use of turning into generalised exchange, it is more and more assumed that the Soviet Union would not the USA in retaliation for strikes against individual whether these targets were Soviet tanks or targets inside the hit by Cruise missiles If such a proposition is valid it means war Covere confined •to and the Soviet Union could suffer defeat, accepting nuclea attacks against its forces and even one of but not retaliating against the I destruction. temptation for NATO'S _ a series ot assumptions which make nuclear war thinkable. because of that that Reagan's 'confusion takes on a decidedly unfunny light.